The Financial Ombudsman Service: a matter of principle, ask Jonathan Kirk QC & Thomas Samuels
In brief
- In May 2020, HHJ Dight CBE handed-down his long-awaited decision in Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP [2020] EWHC 1229.
- The disparity between the analysis and outcome in that decision and the approach to similar complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman Service, is a cause for concern in a heavily-regulated financial services sector.
In Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP [2020] EWHC 1229, [2020] All ER (D) 136 (May) in around February 2012, Mr Adams, a self-employed road haulage contractor, wanted to review his existing personal pension arrangements. He therefore responded to an online advertisement placed by CLP Brokers Sociedad (CLP), which referred to better returns on your pension through investments offered by them. CLP advised Mr Adams that an investment in store pods, from Store First Limited held in a self-invested personal pension (SIPP) would improve the performance of his pension. Accordingly, he transferred his existing provision
